Wednesday, September 16, 2009

On “propping up” ...

If you go to the store and pay the $1.99 posted for a loaf of bread, are you “propping up” the store or just getting the bread you came for?

Similarly, if the NDP supports the EI reform don't they get something in return ... something called EI reform?

Most would see it that way, but it’s clearly in the interests of some to see it the other way.

It’s not propping up if you get what you came for. It’s not propping up if you make parliament work in the same way that parliaments work in every developed legislature on Earth: through principled pragmatism and collaboration to improve the lives of Canadians.

Jack Layton said it best on Monday: he spent the summer listening to the people for whom an extra five weeks of EI is the difference between losing their home, car and dreams. Not helping them if you can is irresponsible.

There is no parallel to what the Liberals did since the January 2009 budget. Under the questionable leadership of Michael Ignatieff, they passively handed over the votes of their 77 MPs for a shopping cart full of nothing.

Layton's caucus is making parliament work by getting results: $1 billion worth for the unemployed. For their part, the Red Team is buying time for a Liberal leader who still doesn't know what he's doing (see: Iraq, torture, Employment Insurance and Harper's HST on Ontario and BC families).

3 comments:

Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks? Fat Tony: Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? Bart: No. Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them? Bart: Uh uh. Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes? Bart: I guess that's okay. Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart? Bart: Hell, no.

I think the simple comparison is: if this EI reform were introduced last spring the NDP would've passed on it. I'm not certain, that's just my opinion.

Jack refused to even read the budget last winter before voting it down. Was that responsible? That seemed pretty boneheaded at the time, to me. He had nothing to lose by reading it then voting it down anyway. I think he learned something from that experience, to his credit.